CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 05-15-01533-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2015

in Re: Bryan Rowes

This case involves an original proceeding initiated by Bryan Rowes related to a family law matter. The record includes a protective order issued against Bryan Rowes in April 2014, prohibiting him from harassing or threatening Mary Tillotson and restricting his proximity to her and her workplace. Subsequently, Mary Tillotson filed a motion for enforcement, alleging multiple violations of this protective order by Bryan Rowes, including unwanted contact, appearing at her workplace (Children's Medical Hospital), sending threatening emails, and disseminating a 'sex offender' letter. The court found Bryan Rowes in civil and criminal contempt for two specific violations: an elevator encounter at the courthouse and a harassing email. He was sentenced to a $500 fine and 30 days of confinement in county jail.

Family LawProtective OrderContemptChild CustodyStalkingHarassmentEnforcementAttorney FeesTexas LawParental Rights
References
14
Case No. 08-02-00076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2004

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Loa, Daniel R.

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict where Daniel R. Loa sued Union Pacific Railroad Company for workplace harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Loa, a Mexican-American employee, experienced daily racial slurs and threats from his supervisor, Kevin Goewey, and alleged retaliation after filing an EEOC complaint. The jury initially awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages, which were remitted by the trial court. On appeal, the Court affirmed the finding of workplace harassment but reversed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of "severe" emotional distress. The court further reformed the judgment, capping total damages (compensatory and punitive) at $300,000 under the TCHRA and remanded the case for the trial court to determine reasonable attorney's fees.

workplace harassmentnational origin discriminationintentional infliction of emotional distresspunitive damagescompensatory damagesattorney's feesTCHRATexas Labor Codeappellate reviewdamages cap
References
22
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Caring for the Homeless of Peekskill, Inc.

This Title VII action concerns a male employee, Mr. Larry Carter, who alleged sexual harassment and constructive discharge by Dr. Janet Foy, Chairman of the Board of Directors of his employer, Caring for the Homeless of Peekskill, Inc. The alleged harassment followed the termination of a consensual sexual relationship between Carter and Foy. After a jury found in favor of Carter, the defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court examined the alleged incidents of harassment, including off-premises confrontations and a request for resignation, and concluded that they did not constitute a hostile work environment or constructive discharge under Title VII standards. The court determined that the issues arose from a 'failed affair' rather than workplace harassment. Consequently, the defendants' motion was granted, and judgment was entered in their favor.

Sexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictHostile Work EnvironmentFailed Personal RelationshipEmployment LawFederal District CourtEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. 03-04-00427-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2006

Daniel O'Dell v. State

Appellant Daniel O'Dell was found guilty of harassment for making repeated telephone calls to the Texas Rehabilitation Commission (TRC) after his workplace injury claim was denied. O'Dell appealed his conviction, asserting seven points of error including the unconstitutionality of the harassment statute, denial of due process, and issues with witness presentation and judicial recusal. The Court of Appeals reviewed each point, concluding that the harassment statute was constitutional and finding no merit in O'Dell's claims regarding pretrial proceedings, discovery, or the recusal of Judge Clawson. The court also found no reversible error in the punishment phase, ultimately affirming the conviction.

Criminal HarassmentDue ProcessSpeedy TrialRight to CounselWitness RightsEvidence ExclusionJudicial RecusalContempt of CourtTexasWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brookdale Hospital Medical Center v. Local 1199, National Health & Human Service Employees Union

Brookdale Hospital Medical Center initiated an action against Local 1199, National Health & Human Service Employees Union, seeking to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated five employees discharged for alleged sexual harassment. The District Court identified significant ambiguity in the arbitrator's decision regarding factual findings and their alignment with the strong public policy against workplace sexual harassment. Consequently, the court found it difficult to affirm or vacate the award without further detail. The case has been remanded to Arbitrator Lois A. Rappaport to clarify specific definitions of sexual harassment, detail the factual basis for her conclusions, and address the Grievants' prior disciplinary history. The court's ruling on the cross-motions to vacate or confirm the award is stayed pending this essential clarification.

Arbitration AwardVacaturRemandSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentWorkplace MisconductEmployee ReinstatementCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Clarification
References
28
Case No. M2020-00570-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2021

Kelly L. Phelps v. State of Tennessee

Plaintiff Kelly Phelps sued the State of Tennessee for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). She alleged that Josh Walsh, an assistant park manager, sexually assaulted her at an after-party on State property following a park-hosted Halloween party. Phelps also claimed retaliation, citing continued harassment by Walsh and a reduction in favorable work shifts after reporting the incident. The trial court had granted summary judgment to the State, concluding the assault didn't occur "in the workplace" and the alleged retaliation wasn't a "materially adverse action." However, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the harassment affected her employment conditions and if the State unlawfully retaliated, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Hostile Work EnvironmentOff-Premises HarassmentSupervisor LiabilitySummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewCase Remand
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galarza v. American Home Assurance Co.

Lorri Galarza sued her employer, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), alleging workplace sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Executive Law. Galarza claimed a co-worker, Marc Kaplan, sexually harassed her, and that she was fired after reporting the harassment to management. AHAC moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a reasonable complaint procedure and that Galarza's termination was due to poor job performance and insubordination, not retaliation. The court found that AHAC provided a reasonable avenue for complaint and made diligent efforts to investigate. Furthermore, the court concluded that Galarza failed to demonstrate that AHAC's stated reasons for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, AHAC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Galarza's claims.

sexual harassmentretaliatory dischargeTitle VIIsummary judgmenthostile work environmentemployee conductperformance deficienciesdiscrimination claimsfederal civil procedure
References
21
Case No. 23-0376
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2024

Fossil Group, Inc. v. Nicole Harris

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a workplace sexual harassment case involving Nicole Harris against Fossil Group, Inc. Harris alleged a hostile work environment and that Fossil failed to take prompt remedial action after she reported harassment by a co-worker, Leland Brown. The Court held that even assuming Harris sent an anonymous email in late April 2019, Fossil's subsequent actions—firing Brown within a month of learning from another source—constituted prompt remedial action, especially given Harris's voluntary resignation days after her alleged email. The Court found no evidence that Fossil had actual or constructive knowledge of the harassment before late April. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's take-nothing judgment for Fossil.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace DiscriminationEmployer LiabilityPrompt Remedial ActionConstructive KnowledgeSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeHostile Work EnvironmentAnonymous Reporting SystemEmployee Resignation
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1993

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union

The New York City Transit Authority appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed a Tripartite Arbitration Board's decision. The Board had modified the dismissal sanction for employee Samuel Douglas, who was found guilty of sexual harassment, to a suspension without pay. The Transit Authority argued this modification violated public policy by undermining its efforts to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. However, the appellate court balanced the strong public policy against sexual harassment with the necessity of exercising due restraint in vacating arbitration awards. The court found that the arbitration award was not irrational and that public policy considerations did not prohibit the imposition of a suspension in lieu of a dismissal, especially given Douglas's lack of prior similar misconduct. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed, with costs.

Sexual HarassmentArbitration AwardPublic PolicyEmployer LiabilityEmployee DisciplineSuspensionDismissalCPLR Article 75Title VIIAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,576 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational